No. It means that the only instance where a rounder earther proved earth round with the Bedford level experiment, actually turned out to be because the arbitrator was friends with the round earther. (Wallace even paid Walsh's court costs for him).

so 2 for FE, 0 for RE. 1 result nullified. Arguing the earth is round seems an exercise in semantics when faced with information like this.

Not really, because an unbiased jury of their peers said that Wallace cheated.

Someone else said Wallace cheated? There's plenty of stuff about the wager being void, but nothing about Wallace actually cheating.

It also seems odd that Wallace would be the one to cheat, given that it was, as far as I know, Hampden who designed the experiment, chose the location and chose the time.

Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Thork

The arbitrator did such a poor job of over seeing the experiment, a court decided that the arbitrator himself was liable for the costs. It shows how underhand Wallace and Walsh were.

If the court would not take Walsh's word over Hampden's, why would I? Walsh has been proven to be of untrustworthy character. His verdict means diddly squat. There are two other experiments. We can look to those for an answer.

Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Assuming that you are talking about the document linked to previously in this topic, there are two main issues I have with it:

It's between Hampden and Walsh, not Hampden and Wallace.

There's no mention of cheating.

Unless there's another document somewhere which everyone is talking about instead.

Wallace took up the experiment because he was desperate for the money, and the court mentioned made Wallace give Hampton his money back. We have the proceedings somewhere on the site if you want to see them.

Assuming that you are talking about the document linked to previously in this topic, there are two main issues I have with it:

It's between Hampden and Walsh, not Hampden and Wallace.

There's no mention of cheating.

Unless there's another document somewhere which everyone is talking about instead.

The wager, not the result. Bets can easily be ruled invalid without rendering the basis of the bet null.

The determinant of the result was ruled invalid. A valid result was never announced, which is why the bet was nullified - because there was no result.With this in mind, I agree that it's difficult to render the result valid or invalid when there's no result to affect in the first place.

The determinant of the result was ruled invalid. A valid result was never announced, which is why the bet was nullified - because there was no result.With this in mind, I agree that it's difficult to render the result valid or invalid when there's no result to affect in the first place.

Not true - the bet was nullified because Hampden complained before the money was paid out. The official transcript makes no mention of the validity of the result.

By complaining in time, Hampden was able to nullify the wager after losing and get his money back on a technicality. As Markjo said, he weasled out of the wager once he had been shown to be incorrect. He then accused Wallace of cheating resulting in Wallace winning multiple libel suits against Hampden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Other_controversies

In 1838, Samuel Rowbotham waded into a drainage canal in Norfolk and sighted along its length with a telescope. Six miles away, an assistant held a flag three feet above the water. If the earth were round, its curvature should hide the flag from him. But he decided he could see it clearly. “It follows,” he wrote, “that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth IS NOT A GLOBE!”

Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)

I missed the part where a post on http://www.futilitycloset.com/about/, described as "a collection of entertaining curiosities" is an explanation or refutation of what I posted about the official transcript that you linked earlier. Go again, perhaps?

Thork

It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times. Twice where the result confirmed a flat earth and once where the result was annulled due to arbitration irregularities. So blinkered are the RErs here, that rather than examine the two confirmed results, they instead prefer to pick and play with the prospect that convicted swindlers Wallace and Walsh may have been correct.

It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times. Twice where the result confirmed a flat earth and once where the result was annulled due to arbitration irregularities.

To put it another way, you could say it was performed twice by people who used it to show the earth was flat and once to prove that the earth is not flat. The fact that the same experiment can be used to show such obviously conflicting results would call into question whether the Bedford Level Experiment is valid at all.

Boot on the other foot, you would point out that you have still ignored my analysis of the document you linked, where no reference is made to cheating or swindling by the parties involved. You are attempting to use the fact that the wager was nullified on a technicality to nullify the result of the experiment. How am I the one grasping at straws?

I sure wish people would stop using SBRs stupid experiment in the water as proof. 6 miles is not far enough to see much curve. At that close of a distance, the Earth would have not dropped very much; and definitely not enough to see at 18 inches above the water, with the naked eye, unless some rare conditions exist. This does not prove the Earth is flat. I just means that you have to be much farther than 6 miles to see much of the curves affect.

Plus, the water was moving, so it was obviously slanted, not straight.

I sure wish people would stop using SBRs stupid experiment in the water as proof. 6 miles is not far enough to see much curve. At that close of a distance, the Earth would have not dropped very much; and definitely not enough to see at 18 inches above the water, with the naked eye, unless some rare conditions exist. This does not prove the Earth is flat. I just means that you have to be much farther than 6 miles to see much of the curves affect.

Plus, the water was moving, so it was obviously slanted, not straight.

Agreed. I can't figure out why people cling to the BLE and SBR so much. These issues only make FE Proponentls look more like trolls. We have 173 years of scientific expansion since the BLE. People need to ditch SBR and the BLE if they have any chance of moving forward with their ideas. If in fact the earth is flat and all the nonsensical pseudoscience spewed on the FES is true, there must be better modern evidence of it somewhere. SBR only serves to hurt the FE case.

Logged

Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?

It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times.

To the point, the experiment was performed dozens of times by Dr. Rowbotham over the course of many years for groups of globularists and planists alike. The only questionable result recorded is the case of Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.

Logged

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Please, momentia. You are talking about centimeters over a 6 mile stretch of water. Your diagram of a round Earth is grossly exaggerated. And neither of the photos you presented show what could even remotely be construed as a completely straight 6 mile path of water.

Please, momentia. You are talking about centimeters over a 6 mile stretch of water. Your diagram of a round Earth is grossly exaggerated. And neither of the photos you presented show what could even remotely be construed as a completely straight 6 mile path of water.

It seems you missed my post where I explained that this experiment has been performed three times.

To the point, the experiment was performed dozens of times by Dr. Rowbotham over the course of many years for groups of globularists and planists alike. The only questionable result recorded is the case of Wallace's attempt to defraud Hampden.

Words like defraud, cheat and swindle are being used in this thread very freely without any evidence.Also, where is there a mention of a questionable result to the experiment?

like ive posted before, we should do this again as part of the FES. get FET and RET together and they can both take part. may even end in a legal battle but seriously, why not, many live in the uk and i should be able to ride there next summer. i said before we can even aproach a school science class and blag them to even provide equipment. now thats 1st hand evidence and not just taking someones word for it

100% of professional surveyors on this forum agree that this experiment is not the best way to determine the shape of the earth. There are threads using mulptiple setup points, with crosschecking, and reverse measuring, that is a critical component of calling something a survey rather than sightseeing.

Logged

Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

Self-proclaimed professional surveyors, that is. What you claim your profession to be has no affect on the validity of your claims.

My claim to be a surveyor is more valid than old sammy's. He openly utilizes non professional procedures which have been demonstrated to be inconclusive. If you have done any research on the topic you would know that single point observations with no checks, rechecks, cross ties, or backsights are not surveys, but are more akin to sightseeing.

I will admit that his work around the canal is more conclusive than the rest of his book, which involves discussion of places he has never been to.

« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:36:46 AM by Theodolite »

Logged

Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

Fantastic! According to most REers though just your word on this is not enough. I'm sure you'll be willing to back this claim up by posting your credentials, as has been demanded of us regarding Dr Rowbotham.